Debates of April 25th, 2018

Bill C-55—Time Allocation Motion

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think most members in this House will appreciate, value, and congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Natural Resources for their collaborative work in moving our country forward when it comes to supporting the environment and supporting the economy. This is a language and a vision that I think most Canadians also share. We look forward to more debate, more advances, and more action in the future. This bill, for instance, would set out a panel to inform the future work of this House as well as the work of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when it comes to meeting our international commitments regarding the protection of our very valuable oceans.

We look forward to continuing this important discussion with all members in this House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

My question does not relate to the meaning of the bill, so I do not want to hear a response on the substance of the bill. My question has to do with the time allocation motion.

Without saying who is and is not here in the House, I can see that the minister is surrounded by some MPs who were here during the previous Parliament, when the Conservatives made good use of time allocation motions, which they moved nearly every day. These members always rose to speak out against these Conservative time allocation motions.

Today, the tables have turned. These same members are still here, but they remain silent. They are no longer critical of time allocation motions.

What changed between those days before 2015, when they were criticizing time allocation motions every day, and today, when then have nothing to say so they sit and listen?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

I thank my colleague for his comment, Mr. Speaker. It is true, he has been in the House a little longer than I have, so I am sure he knows how complicated things were prior to 2015.

I have not been in the member's shoes. Maybe I have not had the same traumatic experiences, but I know that in 2017 and 2018, our Liberal caucus is doing tremendous work. Our MPs take their work very seriously and they meet with ministers regularly.

I also know that opposition members are doing an excellent job, too. I want to commend the NDP in particular, whose members have risen six times, while Conservative MPs have spoken 21 times, out of a total 34 speeches in the House.

I believe that everyone has contributed. As the member also knows, a government must be willing to listen. A government also needs to take action on issues like protecting assets as important as Canada's three oceans. As I said, we are fortunate to have three oceans, but we also have a duty to protect them.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals could be this arrogant. Yesterday the minister was at committee talking about how he was going to be open and transparent and how he was going to listen to Canadians. The Liberals are saying that they are doing that here today, yet here they are calling for time allocation, shutting down debate in this House because they are afraid to hear the honest debate about the unprecedented powers that will be given to the fisheries minister through this bill. He and only he would be able decide what areas would be shut down for transport, oil and gas exploration, fishing, and any type of activity in the oceans.

Why do the Minister of Fisheries, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Transport not have the jam to stand up and answer this question?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member and commend him for his interest and his contribution to the debate. As he well knows, Bill C-55 would correct a major flaw in the current system. The current system has two possibilities, zero protection or full protection, and nothing in between. The in-between matters where we have a presumption that some marine areas need to be preserved and protected. What we would put in place with Bill C-55 would be a regime within which interim protections could be provided. That means that the minister would have five years to consult extensively with Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, and draw upon science in the most fulsome, respectful, and efficient manner, and within those five years, there would be interim protections. After five years, a decision would be made as to whether we wanted to permanently protect the area or not protect it at all.

It is a good way forward. There will be more to come with the contributions of the members in this House.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly shocked to hear the minister proudly state in no uncertain terms that the Liberals allocated enough time to debate this bill even though, as he said, only some thirty opposition MPs have spoken.

There are 338 members of the House of Commons. How is that democratic? How is that freedom of speech for all? How is that transparent? We are debating a bill that, as the minister himself said, is vital to the protection of the environment and our oceans. There really is a disconnect between what he is saying and what he claims to be doing. Why are they limiting the time we can spend debating it? I think that, in less than two and a half years, they have invoked closure 35 times. They are also adding only one more day of debate on this bill. I have not yet had my say.

Why are we not afforded the privilege of having an open debate on a bill that the minister himself deems so important?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say three things.

Number one, my colleague, like some of my other colleagues in the House, probably experienced some traumatic things in the pre-2015 era. My colleagues are well aware that we do not even come close to the former government's track record for shutting down debate.

Number two, as the member knows, this government needs to listen to Canadians and to the people Canadians elected to represent them. As I said, the opinions we have heard over the past few weeks have mainly been those of the official opposition and the NDP. We appreciate their views. We know MPs worked hard to share them. We also know they worked hard on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans while it was hearing from its 34 witnesses.

Number three, Canadians understand that a government needs to take action and that there comes a point where, if a consensus cannot be reached and the House cannot unanimously agree, the government needs to push forward, especially on significant issues such as these.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for being here today to discuss this bill and this vote.

I was wondering if the minister could discuss the amount of work that was accomplished by the fisheries and oceans committee. I was discussing this with the member for Avalon, and he told me that the committee put months and months of work into hearing from over 50 witnesses. That is an incredible amount of work. It was over many months.

Every member of the House has the opportunity to go to every committee meeting to offer comments and to listen to experts and people who are involved. I was hoping the minister could comment on the type of debate we might have heard at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to congratulate the member, who knows how important it is to listen and be respectful of the diversity of views of Canadians, particularly indigenous Canadians, who have for too long been forgotten in the way the Canadian government has moved forward. He also knows the important work of other members in our caucus, including the member for Avalon, with whom I had a very good conversation earlier.

I know full well how valuable the effort was that he and others put into the work of the committee. There were nine meetings and 34 witnesses. They were all very important in informing the work of the House. We owe a big debt of gratitude to the members of the committee, and equally important, to all the witnesses and staff who made this work so useful and inclusive.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it is doing well on the environment. That is clearly not true. It is not the case, and I will give an example from my riding.

There is a group of people trying to work with Environment and Climate Change on setting up a new pasture lease situation. They have found that the environment officials are dictating to them at every point. They are telling them the employment they need there. They are setting the provisions of the agreements to work with the community. They are threatening them and saying that if they do not do it their way, they will make it much more difficult for them and they will be jumping through hoops for a long time. Officials are condescending to them and assuming that any local activity is destructive. They do not want to talk to local people or give them any control over anything to do with the project. Basically, they have shown a complete inability to respond to unique situations, because they do not understand the area.

We are seeing it in the bill as well. There is a better way, which is that environment, natural resources, and fisheries and oceans need to begin with local communities and trust that people on the ground understand a little about what is going on their area. We have seen that in our part of the riding, in particular with some of these situations.

I also should point out that this is actually going to be the only opportunity I have to debate the bill, so when the Liberals said that everyone has had a fair opportunity, that is not true.

How is the bill going to change the attitude of the ministers at fisheries and oceans, environment, and natural resources so that they can begin to work with local communities instead of destroying them?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize, value, and commend the contribution of the member. I would like to signal that his views on the importance of being mindful of local circumstances is not only right but is exactly at the centre of the bill.

The bill recognizes the importance of a case-by-case analysis. Canada is a vast country. Canada has a vast number of Canadians interested in the protection of their environment, the marine environment in particular, and that is why it is so important, as the member said and as the bill explicitly states, to take into account local circumstances, local knowledge, science, and consultations adapted to the context of the projects being analyzed.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my math is correct, if we prorate for the length of time the Liberal government has been in power, it has already surpassed the Conservatives in terms of the number of time allocation motions. This also helps explain why the Liberals backtracked on changing our electoral system, since the idea of working in a coalition appears to be completely foreign to the Liberal Party.

In its electoral proposals, does the government plan to ask the Chief Electoral Officer to bring us back to a time when Canada was made up of only 50 or so constituencies? The Liberals seem to think that 34 speeches for 338 MPs are sufficient to hear everyone's point of view.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am once again delighted to have the opportunity to answer the question.

The member knows very well that the vast majority of the speeches on this bill came from the opposition. We heard 21 speeches from the Conservative Party, and six from the NDP. The member also knows very well that we are eager to see how the NDP votes when the time comes to vote on this bill.

We see this bill as an important tool in protecting our oceans. We are fortunate to have three oceans and, as I said, we also have a duty to protect them. Like all Liberal members in the House, I look forward to seeing whether the NDP agrees with us that it is important to go forward with this legislation, which is especially important, in order to enact the provisions of this bill that will help us reach our target of protecting 10% of Canada's marine areas by 2020.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that the government, the opposition, and the committee debated this bill a great many times.

Can the minister tell us how this bill was strengthened by this process?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member and let her know what a remarkable contribution she is making to the Liberal caucus and the government's activities. She goes about her work in a very open and transparent manner, in a way that is respectful of the many differences in the House, and with a spirit of inclusion.

Our work was carried out in that very same spirit of inclusion over the past few weeks and months to ensure that the House was apprised of the full range of available views. There were 34 speeches, including 26 by Conservatives and 6 by the NDP. We also heard from 34 witnesses over nine meetings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Consequently, we now have a better bill that will help change the way the government can protect our three oceans. That is very good news for Canadians. I would once again like to thank all members of the House and, in particular, the member who just spoke.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite dismaying that the minister has said that most of the speeches have been from the opposition side. Where are the 18 B.C. Liberal MPs? Where are their voices on this? Where are the 32 Atlantic Canada MPs on this? Bill C-55 will absolutely be transformative for our coastal communities. It will financially impact those coastal communities in a negative way.

Bill C-55 would empower the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to immediately designate marine protected areas by order and to prohibit certain activities in those areas while the areas in question are studied.

Could our hon. colleague across the way please inform the House what provisions are in place through Bill C-55 for any economic losses incurred by the communities and industry in those areas adjacent?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague used the word “transformative”. Indeed this will be transformative in this government's ability to protect our three oceans. It has been transformative in the way in which my colleagues from Atlantic Canada and B.C. have been able to put forward their views, their vision, and their ability to work for their constituents in the context of the process that led to this very important bill.

I would like to congratulate the members from Atlantic Canada, as well as from B.C., for their important contribution, not only in this place but also in many other places outside of it where leadership matters and where they have shown the type of leadership Canadians expect from this government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #655